[libstdc++ 2/3] Explain licensing of library code and docs
Gerald Pfeifer
pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
Tue Oct 9 10:57:00 GMT 2001
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Phil Edwards wrote:
> Index: docs/html/configopts.html
> ===================================================================
> <P CLASS="fineprint"><em>
Just a note, we should use lower-case here, that is, <p class="...">
> Comments and suggestions are welcome, and may be sent to
> <a href=" mailto:libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org" ;>the mailing list</a>.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...>the libstdc++ mailing list</a>
> Index: docs/html/documentation.html
> ===================================================================
> +<p>Return <a href=" http://gcc.gnu.org/libstdc++/" ;>to the homepage</a>.</p>
This shouldn't be an absolute link, because of our mirrors.
"to the homepage" should read "to the libstdc++ homepage".
> +<P CLASS="fineprint"><em>
<p class="..."> and also the same "mailing list" change as above. This
also occurs on several other pages, but I have not explicitely noted
these changes for all of them.
> Index: docs/html/license.html
> ===================================================================
> +<h1 CLASS="centered"><a name="top">Licenses for the Library</a></h1>
"class"
> +<p>There are two licenses affecting GNU libstdc++-v3: one for the code, and
> + one for the documentation. Here we will describe both of them, and try
> + to answer some of the common questions.
"common" here is a bit ambivalent (to me, as a non-native speaker at
least). "common" in the sense of "wide-spread, often" or as in "common
to both of them"?
> + If you have more questions, ask the
> + FSF or the gcc-help mailing list; the person writing this page is a
> + programmer, not a lawyer.
Probably we should direct folks to the gcc@gcc.gnu.org list for intricate
licensing questions?
> +<p>Hopefully that text is self-explanatory. If it isn't, you need to speak
> + to your lawyer, or the Free Software Foundation. I am not a legal expert.
> + I do not even play one on television.
> +</p>
This seems a bit too sloppy, and we probably should avoid "I" on an
official page like this. (Keep in mind that this will appear on
www.gnu.org as well!)
> +<p><strong>Q: I see. So, what restrictions <em>are</em> there on
> + programs that use the library?</strong>
> + <br>A: None. We encourage such programs to be released as open source,
> + but we won't punish you or sue you if you choose otherwise.
> +</p>
Instead of this markup, we could use definition lists:
<dl>
<dt>Hey, can you tell me why nosly always blububgoo?</dt>
<dd>No, but you might want to consult your doctor.</dd>
...
</dl>
> +<!-- Someone would probably shoot me if I uncommented this.
> +<p><strong>Q: I heard that the startup code for libstdc++-v3 detects
> + what license the program uses, and makes my program crash if it isn't
> + an open source license! Is that true?</strong>
> + <br>A: You are paranoid and insane. Please calm down and try switching
> + to decaf.
> +</p>
> +-->
Yup, probably. See my comment regarding www.gnu.org above.
> /Please/ review the new license.html, and send comments to the libstdc++
> mailing list.
I hope this comments appear useful (and not too critical) -- thanks for
taking care of clarifying the license situation!
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list